Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, owners of land bearing survey No. 117/4 in Village Sangmeshwar, Taluka Malegaon, District Nashik, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that Reservation No. 378 for a burial ground, imposed under the sanctioned development plan of the Malegaon Municipal Corporation, had lapsed due to the respondents' failure to acquire the land within the statutory period. The land, admeasuring 1 H 93 R and 2 H 46 R, was reserved for a burial ground in the Draft Development Plan published by the Malegaon Municipal Corporation and sanctioned on 15 September 2006. Despite the passage of more than a decade, the respondents did not initiate acquisition proceedings. The petitioners served a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) on 19 November 2018, followed by a second notice on 5 December 2018. The Deputy Commissioner of the Corporation acknowledged the notice and sought ownership documents, which were provided. The statutory period of 24 months from the first notice expired on 19 November 2020, but no declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was published. The petitioners contended that the reservation stood lapsed and the land must be freed from reservation. The respondents, in their affidavits, stated that steps such as issuing a press note cautioning prospective purchasers and conducting a joint measurement of the land had been taken, and that the period of the COVID-19 pandemic should be excluded from computation. They also pointed to a revised measurement being sought. The core legal issue was whether such administrative steps constitute the commencement of acquisition proceedings under Section 127. The High Court, relying on its earlier decisions in Ramakant Vasudeo Pai v. State of Maharashtra (2021) and Trilok Singh Pahlajsingh Rajpal v. MCGM (2022), and the Supreme Court's ruling in Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (2011), held that steps towards acquisition commence only upon the publication of a declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act or Section 19 of the 2013 Act. Mere administrative acts like measurement or correspondence, or even a press note, do not satisfy the statutory requirement. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act is to prevent land from being locked under reservation indefinitely. It observed that even after excluding the COVID-19 period, no such declaration was made. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and declared Reservation No. 378 lapsed, freeing the land from reservation. The State Government was directed to notify the lapsing within two months from the date of judgment.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Lapsing of Reservation - Section 127, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Statutory Period - Where a purchase notice is served and the planning authority fails to acquire the land or take steps by publishing a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within 24 months, the reservation lapses. Administrative steps such as conducting joint measurement, issuing press notes, or corresponding for revised measurement do not amount to commencement of acquisition. The object of the MRTP Act is to prevent indefinite freezing of land and ensure expeditious utilization. Held that Reservation No. 378 had lapsed and directed Respondent No. 1 to notify the lapsing within two months (Paras 11-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reservation of the petitioners' land had lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, due to the respondents' failure to acquire the land or take legally recognized steps for acquisition within the statutory period of 24 months from the service of the purchase notice.
Final Decision
Petition allowed; Reservation No. 378 declared lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act; land freed from reservation; Respondent No. 1 directed to notify the lapsing within two months from the date of judgment.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Reservation lapses if land not acquired or steps for acquisition not taken within 24 months of purchase notice
- steps for acquisition commence only upon declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 or Section 19 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- administrative steps like measurement do not constitute commencement
- land cannot be locked under reservation indefinitely
- publication of declaration is essential.
